About


Take On Payments, a blog sponsored by the Retail Payments Risk Forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is intended to foster dialogue on emerging risks in retail payment systems and enhance collaborative efforts to improve risk detection and mitigation. We encourage your active participation in Take on Payments and look forward to collaborating with you.

Take On Payments

October 21, 2019


Looking for Partners in Safer Payments

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta is currently identifying financial technology companies (fintechs) involved in payments. Our goal is to build relationships with these companies so we can understand their issues and challenges.

The Federal Reserve's mission for payments is to ensure an effective and efficient system. In pursuing this mission, the Atlanta Fed focuses on the accessibility, integrity, and confidentiality of payments. We play a significant role in this mission by virtue of being an operator of ACH and check clearing as well as a payments researcher.

We are also at the center of an important regional hub of fintech activity. In Georgia, there are 120 fintech companies employing more than 38,000 workers. According to the Technology Association of Georgia, the top 20 Georgia-based fintech companies generate $72 billion in revenues annually, and 70 percent of all domestic card transactions flow through Georgia-based fintechs, earning this region the nickname of "Transaction Alley."

In addition, venture capital investment in fintech contributes to Atlanta being ranked as the 13th most important fintech hub in the world and fourth in the United States (behind San Francisco, New York, and Chicago), according to the University of Cambridge's 2018 Global Fintech Hub Index .

Given our expertise, our role in payments toward furthering the Federal Reserve’s mission, and our location, the Atlanta Fed, in partnership with fintech companies in Transaction Alley, has a unique opportunity to have a real impact on advancing safety in this innovative payments space.

Fintechs in payments aim to produce useful and profitable payments-related products and services but may lack awareness of consumer compliance and rights or the importance of development practices that culminate in safe and secure products and services. Our work will focus on safer payments innovation for payments used by consumers.

The Atlanta Fed is also interested in experimenting with innovative technology used by fintech companies where we believe the technology could solve our business problems or be beneficial to us. This experimentation will give us first-hand experience and deep knowledge of fintech-developed technology and therefore an understanding of the contribution and impact the technology has on the payments ecosystem.

Through this work, we hope also to advance economic mobility and resilience, another priority for the Atlanta Fed. Our desire is to engage fintechs with products or solutions that provide low-cost, accessible options to advance financial inclusion and improve consumers' financial health.

Together with the payments fintech industry, we can bring clarity regarding the impact of fintech solutions on the payments system. So we encourage the fintech payment innovators to partner with the Atlanta Fed to understand payments risk and create safer payments solutions.

Get in touch with me at Mary.Kepler@atl.frb.org to start the conversation.

October 21, 2019 in financial technology, innovation, regulators | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

December 3, 2018


Building Blocks for the Sandbox

I just returned from a leave of absence to welcome my third child to this world. As I catch up on payments news, one theme emerging is the large number of state and federal regulatory bodies launching their own fintech sandboxes. Typically, these testing grounds allow businesses to experiment with various "building blocks" while they innovate. Some businesses are even allowed regulatory relief as they work out the kinks. As I've researched, I've found myself daydreaming about how my new little human also needs to work with the right building blocks, or core principles, to ensure he develops properly and "plays nice" in the sandbox.

But—back to work. What guidance do fintechs have available to them to grow and prosper?.

On July 31 of this year, the U.S. Department of the Treasury released a report suggesting regulatory reform to promote financial technology and innovation among both traditional financial institutions and nonbanks. The report in its entirety is worth a review, but I'll highlight some of it here.

The blueprint for a unified regulatory sandbox is still up for discussion, but the Treasury suggests a hierarchical structure, either overseen by a single regulator or by an entirely new regulator. The Treasury suggests that Congress will likely have to assist by passing legislation with the necessary preemptions to grant authority to the newly created agency or a newly named authoritative agency.

The report outlines these core principles of a unified regulatory sandbox:

  • Promote the adoption and growth of innovation and technological transformation in financial services.
  • Provide equal access to companies in various stages of the business lifecycle (e.g., startups and incumbents). [The regulator should define when a business could or should participate.]
  • Delineate clear and public processes and procedures, including a process by which firms enter and exit.
  • Provide targeted relief across multiple regulatory frameworks.
  • Offer the ability to achieve international regulatory cooperation or appropriate deference where applicable.
  • Maintain financial integrity, consumer protections, and investor protections commensurate with the scope of the project, not be based on the organization type (whether it's a bank or nonbank).
  • Increase the timeliness of regulator feedback offered throughout the product or service development lifecycle. [Slow regulator feedback is typically a deterrent for start-up participation.]

Clearly, the overarching intent of these principles is to help align guidance, standards, and regulation to meet the needs of a diverse group of participants. Should entities offering the same financial services be regulated similarly? More importantly, is such a mission readily achievable?

People have long recognized the fragmentation of the U.S. financial regulatory system. The number of agencies at the federal and state levels with a hand in financial services oversight creates inconsistencies and overlaps of powers. Fintech innovations even sometimes invite attention from regulators outside of the financial umbrella, regulators like the Federal Communications Commission or the Federal Trade Commission.

In the domain of financial services are kingdoms of industry. Take the payments kingdom, for example. Payments are interstate, global, and multi-schemed (each scheme with its own rules framework). And let's be honest, in the big picture of financial services innovations and in the minds of fintechs, payments are an afterthought, and they aren't front and center in business plans. Consumers want products or services; payments connect the dots. (In fact, the concept of invisible payments is only growing stronger.)

What is more, a fintech, even though it may have a payments component in its technology, might not identify itself as a fintech. And a business that doesn't see itself as a fintech is not going to get in line for a unified financial services regulator sandbox (though it might want to play in a payments regulator sandbox).

When regulatory restructuring takes place, I hope it will build a dedicated infrastructure to nurture the payments piece of fintech, so that all can play nice in the payments sandbox. (Insert crying baby.)

Photo of Jessica Washington By Jessica Washington, AAP, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

December 3, 2018 in bank supervision, emerging payments, financial services, fintech, innovation, regulations, regulators | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

September 10, 2018


The Case of the Disappearing ATM

The longtime distribution goal of a major soft drink company is to have their product "within an arm's reach of desire." This goal might also be applied to ATMs—the United States has one of the highest concentration of ATMs per adult. In a recent post, I highlighted some of the findings from an ATM locational study conducted by a team of economics professors from the University of North Florida. Among their findings, for example, was that of the approximately 470,000 ATMs and cash dispensers in the United States, about 59 percent have been placed and are operated by independent entrepreneurs. Further, these independently owned ATMs "tend to be located in areas with less population, lower population density, lower median and average income (household and disposable), lower labor force participation rate, less college-educated population, higher unemployment rate, and lower home values."

This finding directly relates to the issue of financial inclusion, an issue that is a concern of the Federal Reserve's. A 2016 study by Accenture pointed "to the ATM as one of the most important channels, which can be leveraged for the provision of basic financial services to the underserved." I think most would agree that the majority of the unbanked and underbanked population is likely to reside in the demographic areas described above. One could conclude that the independent ATM operators are fulfilling a demand of people in these areas for access to cash, their primary method of payment.

Unfortunately for these communities, a number of independent operators are having to shut down and remove their ATMs because their banking relationships are being terminated. These closures started in late 2014, but a larger wave of account closures has been occurring over the last several months. In many cases, the operators are given no reason for the sudden termination. Some operators believe their settlement bank views them as a high-risk business related to money laundering, since the primary product of the ATM is cash. Financial institutions may incorrectly group these operators with money service businesses (MSB), even though state regulators do not consider them to be MSBs. Earlier this year, the U.S. House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit held a hearing over concerns that this de-risking could be blocking consumers' (and small businesses') access to financial products and services. You can watch the hearing on video (the hearing actually begins at 16:40).

While a financial institution should certainly monitor its customer accounts to ensure compliance with its risk tolerance and compliance policies, we have to ask if the independent ATM operators are being painted with a risk brush that is too broad. The reality is that it is extremely difficult for an ATM operator to funnel "dirty money" through an ATM. First, to gain access to the various ATM networks, the operator has to be sponsored by a financial institution (FI). In the sponsorship process, the FI rigorously reviews the operator's financial stability and other business operations as well as compliance with BSA/AML because the FI sponsor is ultimately responsible for any network violations. Second, the networks handling the transaction are completely independent from the ATM owners. They produce financial reports that show the amount of funds that an ATM dispenses in any given period and generate the settlement transactions. These networks maintain controls that clearly document the funds flowing through the ATM, and a review of the settlement account activity would quickly identify any suspicious activity.

The industry groups representing the independent ATM operators appear to have gained a sympathetic ear from legislators and, to some degree, regulators. But the sympathy hasn't extended to those financial institutions that are accelerating account closures in some areas. We will continue to monitor this issue and report any major developments. Please let us know your thoughts.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

September 10, 2018 in banks and banking, consumer protection, financial services, money laundering, regulations, regulators, third-party service provider | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

April 2, 2018


Advice to Fintechs: Focus on Privacy and Security from Day 1

Fintech continues to have its moment. In one week in early March, I attended three Boston-area meetings devoted to new ideas built around the blockchain, open banking APIs, and apps for every conceivable wrinkle in personal financial management.

"Disruptive" was the vocabulary word of the week.

But no matter how innovative, disruptive technology happens within an existing framework of consumer protection practices and laws. Financial products and tools—whether a robofinancial adviser seeking to consolidate your investment information or a traditional checking account at a financial institution—are subject to laws and regulations that protect consumers. As an attorney speaking at one of the Boston meetings put it, "The words 'unfair,' 'deceptive,' and 'misleading' keep me up at night."

A failure to understand the regulatory framework can play out in various ways. For example, in a recent survey of New York financial institutions (FI)s by the Fintech Innovation Lab, 60 percent of respondents reported that regulatory, compliance, or security issues made it impossible to move fintech proposals into proof-of-concept testing. Great ideas, but inadequate infrastructure.

To cite another example, in 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took action against one firm for misrepresenting its data security practices. And just last month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with another firm over allegations that the firm had inadequately disclosed both restrictions on funds availability for transfer to external bank accounts and consumers' ability to control the privacy of their transactions. Announcing the settlement, acting FTC chairman Maureen Ohlhausen pointed out that it sent a strong message of the "need to focus on privacy and security from day one."

As Ohlhausen made clear, whoever the disrupter—traditional financial institution or garage-based startup—consumer protection should be baked in from the start. At the Boston meetings, a number of entrepreneurs advocated a proactive stance for working with regulators and urged that new businesses bring in compliance expertise early in product design. Good advice, not only for disrupters but also for innovation labs housed in FIs, FIs adopting third-party technology, and traditional product design.

Photo of Claire Greene By Claire Greene, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

April 2, 2018 in innovation, regulations, regulators | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

December 4, 2017


What Will the Fintech Regulatory Environment Look Like in 2018?

As we prepare to put a bow on 2017 and begin to look forward to 2018, I can’t help but observe that fintech was one of the bigger topics in the banking and payments communities this year. (Be sure to sign up for our December 14 Talk About Payments webinar to see if fintech made our top 10 newsworthy list for 2017.) Many industry observers would likely agree that it will continue to garner a lot of attention in the upcoming year, as financial institutions (FI) will continue to partner with fintech companies to deliver client-friendly solutions.

No doubt, fintech solutions are making our daily lives easier, whether they are helping us deposit a check with our mobile phones or activating fund transfers with a voice command in a mobile banking application. But at what cost to consumers? To date, the direct costs, such as fees, have been minimal. However, are there hidden costs such as the loss of data privacy that could potentially have negative consequences for not only consumers but also FIs? And what, from a regulatory perspective, is being done to mitigate these potential negative consequences?

Early in the year, there was a splash in the regulatory environment for fintechs. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) began offering limited-purpose bank charters to fintech companies. This charter became the subject of heated debates and discussions—and even lawsuits, by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the New York Department of Financial Services. To date, the OCC has not formally begun accepting applications for this charter.

So where will the fintech regulatory environment take us in 2018?

Will it continue to be up to the FIs to perform due diligence on fintech companies, much as they do for third-party service providers? Will regulatory agencies offer FIs additional guidance or due diligence frameworks for fintechs, over and above what they do for traditional third-party service providers? Will one of the regulatory agencies decide that the role of fintech companies in financial services is becoming so important that the companies should be subject to examinations like financial institutions get? Finally, will U.S. regulatory agencies create sandboxes to allow fintechs and FIs to launch products on a limited scale, such as has taken place in the United Kingdom and Australia?

The Risk Forum will continue to closely monitor the fintech industry in 2018. We would enjoy hearing from our readers about how they see the regulatory environment for fintechs evolving.

Photo of Douglas King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

 

December 4, 2017 in banks and banking, financial services, innovation, mobile banking, regulations, regulators, third-party service provider | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

September 18, 2017


The Rising Cost of Remittances to Mexico Bucks a Trend

From time to time, I like to look back at previous Risk Forum activities and see what payment topics we've covered and consider whether we should revisit any. In September 2012, the Risk Forum hosted the Symposium on 1073: Exploring the Final Remittance Transfer Rule and Path Forward. Seeing that almost five years have passed since that event, I decided I'd take another, deeper look to better understand some of the effects that Section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act has had on remittances since then. I wrote about some of my findings in a paper.

As a result of my deeper look, I found an industry that has been rife with change since the implementation of Section 1073 rules, from both a regulatory and technology perspective. Emerging companies have entered the landscape, new digital products have appeared, and several traditional financial institutions have exited the remittance industry. In the midst of this change, consumers' average cost to send remittances has declined.

Conversely, the cost to send remittances within the largest corridor, United States–Mexico, is rising. The rising cost is not attributable to the direct remittance fee paid to an agent or digital provider but rather to the exchange rate margin, which is the exchange rate markup applied to the consumer's remittance over the interbank exchange rate. As remittances become more digitalized and the role of in-person agents diminishes, I expect the exchange rate margin portion of the total cost of remittance to continue to grow.

Even though the average cost of sending remittances to Mexico is on the rise, I found that consumers have access to a number of low-cost options. The spread between the highest-cost remittance options and the lowest-cost options is significant.

Figure-11

With greater transparency than ever before in the remittance industry, consumers now have the ability to find and use low-cost remittance options across a wide variety of provider types and product options. To read more about the cost and availability of remittances from the United States to Mexico and beyond in a post-1073-rule world, you can find the paper here.

Photo of Douglas King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

September 18, 2017 in payments risk, regulations, regulators, remittances, Section 1073, transmitters | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

April 3, 2017


Governance Down Under

When I was a product manager responsible for faster ACH, I had a ringside seat to the lengthy maneuvering required to garner sufficient votes to mandate same-day ACH after the first attempt failed. We can anticipate similar maneuvering as we continue making fundamental improvements to payments, including the various initiatives under way around faster payments.

All of this harkens back to a compelling conference presentation that treasury representatives of a very large U.S. retailer gave several years ago. That presentation focused on the potential benefits of adopting a comprehensive, self-regulating governance model like Australia's. The Australian Payments Clearing Association (APCA) offers key payment stakeholders a seat at the table, thus balancing competing interests among parties in the payment chain.

I agree that the APCA could offer a template for any governance model being contemplated in the United States.

The APCA, to paraphrase, characterizes itself as being responsible for managing and developing regulations, procedures, policies, and standards governing payments clearing and settlement. Standing with and behind them is the authority conferred by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), that country's central bank.

The 100-plus APCA members include a broad cross section of financial institutions, major retailers, and payments providers. The APCA board comprises an independent chair, the chief executive officer, two additional independent directors, eight nonvoting appointed or elected directors, and an RBA representative.

The expected completion later this year of a new payments system will be one of the APCA's more noteworthy achievements. The New Payments Platform, or NPP, will offer a low-value, faster payments service. The APCA partnered with 12 financial institutions to fund the NPP's development costs.

The APCA is divided among the following operational areas:

  • Checks
  • Direct debit/credit—is equivalent to ACH in the United States
  • Wire transfers
  • Cash—sets rules for the exchange and distribution of cash among participating financial institutions
  • Card issuers/acquirers—sponsors a forum for collaboration
  • COIN (Community of Interest Network)—offers a shared infrastructure supporting connectivity for payments such as checks, direct debit and credit, cards, bill pay, and others

Here in the United States, the Federal Reserve has already created a couple of agencies with some similar features: a task force on faster payments and another task force focused more broadly on secure payments for legacy and emerging payments. Both task forces include broad representation from financial institutions, payment providers, businesses, consumer groups, regulators, law enforcement, and others. Perhaps the biggest difference between the APCA and these two work groups is the ad-hoc, limited duration of the Fed groups and their mandate, which is limited to an advisory role. But there are some other activities that the APCA handles that here in the United States are handled by various disparate entities, a situation that hampers coordinated action.

What are your views on what, if anything, we should do to enhance payments governance in the United States?

Photo of Steven Cordray  By Steven Cordray, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk  Forum at the Atlanta Fed

April 3, 2017 in payments systems, regulators | Permalink

Comments

Hi, thanks for the complements about our country's payment landscape. However, you seem to have the idea that the New Payments Platform grew organically out of altruistic efforts by the APCA. It didn't quite happen like that..

In 2007, BPAY (The bill payment platform opeartor) together with the major Australian banks tried to develop another platform called MAMBO (Me and My Bank Online) which would provide more account portability and faster payments. However, due to delays and increasing costs, several banks pulled out and the project was cancelled in 2011.

Then in 2012 the Reserve Bank of Australia demanded that they develop a real time payments platform by 2016, so they got together again and came up with the New Payments Platform, and although it will be a year late (expect late 2017), things are looking good.

One other takeout is that ANZ Bank's deputy CEO Graham Hodges said that MAMBO probably would have worked if it was built by a single bank rather than by a congress of institutions (source: ZDNet article). The NPP is being designed and built by SWIFT.

Posted by: Liron | April 5, 2017 at 01:47 AM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

January 30, 2017


Pssst…Have You Heard about PSD2?

No, I'm not talking about the latest next-generation video gaming console. I am referring to the revised Directive on Payment Services (PSD2) that the European Parliament adopted in October 2015 and that will serve as the legal foundation for a single market for European Union (EU) payments. The original PSD was adopted in 2007 but, according to official statements, the Parliament found that an update was necessary to incorporate new types of payment services, improve consumer protection, strengthen payment transaction security, and increase competitiveness with an expected result of lower consumer fees in the payments processing market. PSD2 applies only to digital payments and must be in force in all EU countries by January 13, 2018.

The directive and subsequent implementation rules that the European Banking Authority* is developing make a number of major changes in the European banking landscape, including:

  • Opens up the regulated financial services system to merchants and processors who might initiate payments on their consumer customer's behalf as well as data aggregator firms. In particular, PSD2 will apply to any financial institutions already operating within the scope of the PSD but will also apply to third parties such as operators of e-commerce marketplaces, gift card and loyalty plans, bill payment service providers, public communication networks, account access services, mobile wallets, and those who receive payment by direct debit.
  • Requires financial institutions, upon the request of their customers, to allow these approved nonbank, third parties significant, but not unlimited, access to the customer's account and transaction data through APIs (application program interfaces). Many financial institutions see having to turn over customer data to potential competitors as a significant threat to the retention of their customer's business as well as concerns with data security.
  • Sets out two-factor customer authentication as an absolute minimum, with additional security such as one-time passwords required for higher-value transactions. The card issuer must actively authenticate all transactions above 10 euros. Critics of these provisions point out that the criminals will have fixed transaction amounts and authentication methodology information to modify their attacks.
  • Supplementing card interchange limits imposed in December 2015, prevents merchants from adding surcharges to payment card transactions. Under the original directive, each country established rules regarding surcharging on card payments. It has been a common practice of European merchants to levy a surcharge on payment card transactions to offset the interchange fee paid to issuers.

While such a comprehensive single package of regulations is unlikely to occur in the United States, various flavors of these items have been and continue to be discussed. Do you favor such types of regulation here in the United States? I suspect the answer depends on your role in the payments ecosystem. I am interested in hearing from you.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed



_______________________________________

* Final rules are expected to be published in January 2017.


January 30, 2017 in emerging payments, mobile payments, payments, payments risk, payments systems, regulations, regulators, risk | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

August 1, 2016


FFIEC Weighs In On Mobile Channel Risks

In late April, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) released new guidance regarding mobile banking and mobile payments risk management strategies. Titled "Appendix E: Mobile Financial Services," the document becomes part of the FFIEC's Information Technology Examination Handbook. While the handbook is for examiners to use to "determine the inherent risk and adequacy of controls at an institution or third party providing MFS" (for mobile financial services), it can also be a useful tool for financial institutions to better understand the expectations that examiners will have when conducting an exam of an institution's MFS offering.

Consistent with examiners' focus on third-party relationships for the last several years, the document points out that MFS often involves engagement with third parties and that the responsibilities of the parties in those relationships must be clearly documented and their compliance closely managed. Other key areas the document reviews include:

  • Mobile application development, maintenance, security, and attack threats
  • Enrollment controls to authenticate the customer's identity and the payment credentials they are adding to a mobile wallet
  • Authentication and authorization, emphasizing that financial institutions should not use mobile payment applications that rely on single-factor methods of authentication.
  • Customer education efforts to support the adoption of strong security practices in the usage of their mobile devices

The document also identifies and reviews strategic, operational, compliance, and reputation risk issues for the various elements of a financial institution's MFS offering. The final section of the document outlines an examiner's work plan for reviewing an MFS program with seven key objectives. I believe that it would be time well spent for the institution's MFS team to assume the role of examiner and use the work plan as a checklist to help effectively identify and manage the risks associated with an MFS program.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

August 1, 2016 in bank supervision, banks and banking, financial services, mobile banking, mobile payments, regulations, regulators, third-party service provider | Permalink

Comments

Looking forward to welcoming David Lott to our upcoming Next Money Tampa Bay meetup.

David will be our keynote on Wednesday, Sept 21, 2016 6:00 ~ 8:00 PM

Tampa Bay Wave Venture Center
500 East Kennedy Boulevard 3rd FL
Tampa Florida 33602

All are welcome to attend RSVP at

https://www.meetup.com/NextMoneyTPA/events/233171815/

Posted by: Bruce Burke | August 6, 2016 at 05:22 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

April 18, 2016


"I want to be alone; I just want to be alone"

This was spoken forlornly by the Russian ballerina Grusinskaya in the 1932 film Grand Hotel by the famously reclusive screen star Greta Garbo. This movie line causes me to occasionally wonder why we all can't just be left alone. Narrowed to payments, why does paying anonymously have to indicate you are hiding something nefarious?

Some of you may be asking why it would be necessary to hide anything. I offer the following examples of cases when someone would want to pay anonymously, either electronically or with cash.

  • Make an anonymous contribution to a charitable or political organization to avoid being hounded later for further contributions.
  • Make a large anonymous charitable contribution to avoid attention or the appearance of self-aggrandizement.
  • Recompense someone in need who may or may not be known personally with no expectation or wish to be repaid.
  • Pay anonymously at a merchant to avoid being tracked for unwelcome solicitations and offers.
  • Make a purchase for a legal but socially-frowned-upon good or service.
  • Shield payments from scrutiny for medical procedures or pharmacy purchases that are stigmatized.
  • Personally, use an anonymous form of payment to avoid letting my wife find out what she will be getting as a gift. (Don't worry; my spouse never reads my blogs so she doesn't know she needs to dig deeper to figure out what she is getting.)

Some of these cases can be handled easily with the anonymity of cash. As cash becomes less frequently used or accepted or perhaps even unsafe or impractical, what do we have as an alternative form of payment? Money orders such as those offered by the U.S. Postal Service are an option. The postal service places a cap of $1,000 on what can be paid for in cash. Nonreloadable prepaid cards such as gift cards offer some opportunity as long as the amount is below a certain threshold. Distributed networks like bitcoin offer some promise but may come with greater oversight and regulations in the future. Some emerging payment providers claim to offer services tailored for anonymous payments. Still, though, the future for a truly anonymous, ubiquitous payment alternative like cash doesn't look promising, given the current regulatory climate.

I acknowledge that one needs to find a proper balance between vigorously tackling financial fraud, money laundering, and terrorist financing and the need that I think most of us share for regulators and others to keep out of our personal business unless a compelling reason justifies such an intrusion. Consequently, we should be scrupulous about privacy but offer the investigatory tools when payments are used for nefarious purposes to identify the activities and the people involved. In many ways, this balancing act dovetails with the highly charged debate going on between the value of encryption and the needs of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to have the investigatory tools to read encrypted data. As Greta Garbo famously said and perhaps inadvertently foretold, some of us just want to be left alone.

Photo of Steven Cordray By Steven Cordray, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

April 18, 2016 in privacy, regulators | Permalink

Comments

I like the open network and transparency that the blockchain offers. I find cash inefficient.

Posted by: Laura | April 20, 2016 at 11:12 AM

Upper middle-income and upper income consumers may not use cash much, but while shopping in certain big-box retailers, I have witnessed many consumers carrying lots of cash.

Posted by: John Olsen | April 18, 2016 at 02:04 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

Google Search



Recent Posts


Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad